Take A Load Off Fani

[Rightguide]

"I respectfully disagree. Listen to someone else explain why"



In other words, someone else disagrees and you agree with them.

They (the ACLJ) are highly respected trial attorneys. They successfully defended Donald Trump at trial in the Senate. The lawyers in the video discussion make a fine point of why "this" potential testimony in question isn't hearsay. I tend to agree and so I posted the link and await with interest Harpy's cogent rejoinder...and so should you if you're interested in the law as opposed to just showcasing your rabid hate for everything I post. However, I'm not saying you can't wear your sphincter suit and continue to be a asshole. You are always free to present yourself as you wish.

 

[ll74]

They (the ACLJ) are highly respected trial attorneys. They successfully defended Donald Trump at trial in the Senate. The lawyers in the video discussion make a fine point of why "this" potential testimony in question isn't hearsay. I tend to agree and so I posted the link and await with interest Harpy's cogent rejoinder...and so should you if you're interested in the law as opposed to just showcasing your rabid hate for everything I post. However, I'm not saying you can't wear your sphincter suit and continue to be a asshole. You are always free to present yourself as you wish.

Yes, you agree with their disagreement. As I mentioned.

At least it was a video so you didn't have to read anything.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, you agree with their disagreement. As I mentioned.

At least it was a video so you didn't have to read anything.

I probably read more in a day than you do in a month.

 

[ll74]

I probably read more in a day than you do in a month.

Yes, I k ow you have a very high opinion of yourself.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, I k ow you have a very high opinion of yourself.

Compared to you, yes.

 

[Rotadom]

Compared to you, yes.

You're the most disrespected and most maligned poster here. Might want to think twice about your opinion of yourself.

 

[ll74]

Compared to you, yes.

That wasn't what I said.

 

[Rotadom]

That wasn't what I said.

Pipe down. He's learnin' ya how much better he is than you.

 

[Lazaran]

This latest eleventh hour "evidence" of "something?" is obviously just another attempt to delay the trial and smear the prosecutors.

The real, indisputable evidence of the interference in the election and an attempted insurrection is what needs to be the focus .

EVERYBODY KNOWS what happened: it’s just spilt between those who want the corrupt orange traitor and the cabal brought to justice, and those who want it all covered up.

Let’s get on with the trial(s).

 

[HisArpy]

I respectfully disagree. Go here at 13:29 to hear why it isn't hearsay:

It's hearsay and inadmissible unless there's an exception to the hearsay rule. I could be wrong but I don't see an exception anywhere for it.

Remember, the hearings and testimony surround the alleged conflict of interest as a result of an affair, not obstruction of justice on the part of Willis. This means that the statements which are alleged to constitute witness tampering aren't statements against interest as related to the affair. It's 2 separate things.

For instance, let's say someone is accused of practicing medicine without a license. Someone overhears that person state that they regularly drive under the influence of samples of drugs they get from the pharma companies. That statement, while incriminating in its own right, has no relevance to any testimony that may have been given regarding practicing without a license. It may support an additional charge, but in regards to the licensing question it's hearsay and inadmissible.

The next question is whether it's a statement by a party/opponent. To a certain degree yes, but since the Willis matter being heard isn't about obstruction, it's irrelevant and again inadmissible. The statement must relate to the issue in question and not to something other than the issue in question. Basically, the rule exists to exclude this type of statement because it's an attempt to show that the accused is generally a bad person therefore they must be guilty of the alleged offense too.

None of the other exceptions apply either. So, while I could be wrong, I don't think the judge will allow the evidence to be admitted.

 

[Rotadom]

It's hearsay and inadmissible unless there's an exception to the hearsay rule. I could be wrong but I don't see an exception anywhere for it.

Remember, the hearings and testimony surround the alleged conflict of interest as a result of an affair, not obstruction of justice on the part of Willis. This means that the statements which are alleged to constitute witness tampering aren't statements against interest as related to the affair. It's 2 separate things.

For instance, let's say someone is accused of practicing medicine without a license. Someone overhears that person state that they regularly drive under the influence of samples of drugs they get from the pharma companies. That statement, while incriminating in its own right, has no relevance to any testimony that may have been given regarding practicing without a license. It may support an additional charge, but in regards to the licensing question it's hearsay and inadmissible.

The next question is whether it's a statement by a party/opponent. To a certain degree yes, but since the Willis matter being heard isn't about obstruction, it's irrelevant and again inadmissible. The statement must relate to the issue in question and not to something other than the issue in question. Basically, the rule exists to exclude this type of statement because it's an attempt to show that the accused is generally a bad person therefore they must be guilty of the alleged offense too.

None of the other exceptions apply either. So, while I could be wrong, I don't think the judge will allow the evidence to be admitted.

We'd rather hear from someone familiar with the law.

 

[HisArpy]

Can it still go forward as a RICO case? In my opinion that horse left the barn.

The problem isn't the viability of the case it's the perception that it's all political in nature.

One side will say that doesn't matter. The other will say it does. In the end both are correct and no court is going to stick its neck out for any defendant under those circumstances. Not even when that defendant is Donald Trump. Or in some cases the court won't do it BECAUSE that defendant is Donald Trump.

The court has a reputation of neutrality to maintain and will instead defer to continuing the case and letting a jury sort it out. If the defense doesn't like the result they can appeal and that also gets the trial court off the hook.

 

[Chobham]

I suspect that the judge is going to rule against the prosecution and refer the case to a prosecutor in an other county. In so doing the court will have washed it's hand of the matter and thrown the ball into a different prosecutors in basket.

 

[Lazaran]

I suspect that the judge is going to rule against the prosecution and refer the case to a prosecutor in an other county. In so doing the court will have washed it's hand of the matter and thrown the ball into a different prosecutors in basket.

Care to bet on that???

Even Derpy knows the "star witnesses" FAILED to prove anything, the "phone expert" FAILED to prove anything, and the traitor’s defense team FAILED to prove anything.

The evidence against Fani Willis is about as compelling as the "republican" committee’s "FORM 1023!!!" that was based on information from a guy named SMIRNOV.



Chobby

 

[Rightguide]

NEW REPORT: Fani Willis Conspired with Liz Cheney’s Faux J6 Committee – J6 Committee Shared Video Recordings with Fani Willis But Then Deleted the Video to Prevent Republican Lawmakers from Gaining Access To It​

By Jim Hoft Mar. 12, 2024 8:00 am


The report was filled with several nuggets of information refuting Liz Cheney’s notoriously dishonest and partisan report that Nancy Pelosi and Democrats released.

Rep. Loudermilk discovered that the J6 Select Committee hid exonerating evidence of President Trump’s push for the National Guard at the US Capitol on January 6. Trump’s requests were rejected by Nancy Pelosi, DC Mayor Bowser, and the Capitol Police.

Rep. Loudermilk also discovered that President Trump’s motorcade driver blew up J6 “super star witness” Cassidy Hutchinson who lied through her teeth about Trump grabbing the steering wheel of The Beast and assaulting a Secret Service agent. Her entire story was completely false, yet the mainstream media has never, ever corrected their reporting on this disgusting lie.

And in the report, there is evidence that Fulton County Georgia Fani Willis met with the illicit committee, and she participated in numerous calls with the sham committee. The J6 Committee even shared video recordings with Fani’s office but deleted the recordings to prevent Republican lawmakers from gaining access to it.

More here on Democrat perfidy: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/03/new-report-fani-willis-conspired-liz-cheneys-faux/

Fani and Liz are attached at the Fanny.

 

[stxjimmy]

NEW REPORT: Fani Willis Conspired with Liz Cheney’s Faux J6 Committee – J6 Committee Shared Video Recordings with Fani Willis But Then Deleted the Video to Prevent Republican Lawmakers from Gaining Access To It​

By Jim Hoft Mar. 12, 2024 8:00 am


The report was filled with several nuggets of information refuting Liz Cheney’s notoriously dishonest and partisan report that Nancy Pelosi and Democrats released.

How is it the chair of the house republican conference can be accused of producing a partisan report?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

The funniest thing about this thread now is that it's just inching along daily on weakly-veneered hope updates and relying on Righty's lackluster attempts to make fun of Fani's name.

 

[Rightguide]

How is it the chair of the house republican conference can be accused of producing a partisan report?

Imagine a long pointed horn growing out of the middle of her face.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

NEW REPORT: Fani Willis Conspired with Liz Cheney’s Faux J6 Committee – J6 Committee Shared Video Recordings with Fani Willis But Then Deleted the Video to Prevent Republican Lawmakers from Gaining Access To It​

By Jim Hoft Mar. 12, 2024 8:00 am


The report was filled with several nuggets of information refuting Liz Cheney’s notoriously dishonest and partisan report that Nancy Pelosi and Democrats released.

LOL, perfect! Tying in a powerful black woman to a powerful white woman who called out Trump on his bullshit....I'm amazed it took this long for one of your rightwing misogynistic wordsmiths to decide to tie them together....but hey, it's keep your hopes up and your cock hard...right wrongway???

 

[HisArpy]

I suspect that the judge is going to rule against the prosecution and refer the case to a prosecutor in an other county. In so doing the court will have washed it's hand of the matter and thrown the ball into a different prosecutors in basket.

Ga has some sort of system where there's a pool of prosecutor offices and if a case needs a change of venue then some kind of lottery kicks in to find out who the pool "winner" is.

To me it's weird so I don't claim to understand it or say that what I've posted is absolutely correct. What I know is that in most States if a DA's office is DQ'd then the State AG has to take over. This is not the way business is done in Ga.

My prediction is that if Fani is DQ'd the "winning" prosecutor's office will be Columbus. It's the only major progressive metro outside of Atlanta capable of handling the circus.

 

[Rotadom]

I don't claim to understand it or say that what I've posted is absolutely correct.

This should be your signature.

 

[HisArpy]

This should be your signature.

Sure thing dooRmat.

 

[Rightguide]

Judge dismisses six counts in Trump Fulton County indictment​

ByKaelan Deese

March 13, 2024 10:30 am

The judge presiding over Donald Trump‘s Georgia election interference trial dropped six charges on Wednesday that the former president and his 14 remaining co-defendants face as he also mulls whether to remove District Attorney Fani Willis from the case.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee issued an order dismissing “Counts 2, 5, 6, 23, 28, and 38” of the indictment but denied efforts to dismiss certain “overt acts” included in the indictment.

McAfee held that some of the allegations that defendants attempted to make Georgia officials violate their oaths of office were not detailed enough.

Willis’s office will have another opportunity to seek charges on the counts that were tossed by McAfee on Wednesday for lack of sufficient detail. But if defense attorneys succeeded at convincing McAfee that those charges would not stick again, prosecutors cannot seek to bring them a third time.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...sses-6-counts-trump-fulton-county-indictment/

Fani's case is coming apart.

 

[Rightguide]

Judge dismisses six counts in Trump Fulton County indictment​

ByKaelan Deese

March 13, 2024 10:30 am

The judge presiding over Donald Trump‘s Georgia election interference trial dropped six charges on Wednesday that the former president and his 14 remaining co-defendants face as he also mulls whether to remove District Attorney Fani Willis from the case.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee issued an order dismissing “Counts 2, 5, 6, 23, 28, and 38” of the indictment but denied efforts to dismiss certain “overt acts” included in the indictment.

McAfee held that some of the allegations that defendants attempted to make Georgia officials violate their oaths of office were not detailed enough.

Willis’s office will have another opportunity to seek charges on the counts that were tossed by McAfee on Wednesday for lack of sufficient detail. But if defense attorneys succeeded at convincing McAfee that those charges would not stick again, prosecutors cannot seek to bring them a third time.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...sses-6-counts-trump-fulton-county-indictment/

Fani's case is coming apart.

Former federal prosecutor and DNI under Donald Trump, John Ratcliffe esplains the dismissal:

John Ratcliffe: "...in federal court, a motion for a more definite statement. It’s called a special demure in the state of Georgia. But essentially, what it is, is it’s various defendants saying, look, you’ve accused us of violating the law, specifically of violating our oath, but you haven’t told us how our conduct matches up with something that we should be held criminally responsible for.

And here the judge agreed. The judge said, you didn’t provide enough specificity in how you pled this. And so he quashed them or dismissed these counts. It’s not a dismissal of the entire case.

I think, if anything, my first take is it really sort of lends itself to the argument that the special prosecutor, special prosecutor Wade in this case is inexperienced in these types of cases and didn’t plead it properly, and as a result, these counts are being dismissed. So it’s a victory of sorts, certainly for former President Trump and all of the defendants that are affected by the ruling. But the case will continue in part."

 

[dmallord]

The case was dismissed due to the absence of explanations for the six dropped charges. However, the District Attorney (DA) can add specifications of the applicable Georgia and US Constitutions and bring the case again. Experts, speaking on television today, have mentioned that the lack of specification noted by the judge is not uncommon and does not necessarily weaken the prosecution's case. Nevertheless, the process requires another grand jury to be reconvened. Those speaking today [Republican and Democrat] acknowledged the judge's finding had legal merits and pointed out that he was doing due diligence in the case.

The recorded conversation between Trump and Raffensberger was one of those dropped. However, the content of the conversation is subject matter included and still stands in the RICO indictment portions, untouched by Judge McAffee.

The case still has substantial legs and merit to continue the prosecution.

Friday, the critical question of whether or not Willis and Wade, are removed from the case is expected to be delivered.

If removed, Trump's delaying tactics get a major shot in the arm as a new team gets appointed or it's perhaps dropped. If not, it still pushes the case back in time - justice is delayed again over the fiasco between Willis and Wade tarnished the case.